Morgan Hill Concerned Parents Association v. California Department of Education

Filing 134

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 12/1/2015 GRANTING defendant's 130 Motion for 60-Day Extension of Time. The hearing on plaintiff's 129 Motion to Compel Further Responses is CONTINUED to 1/13/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtr oom 26 (AC). Parties shall file a Joint Statement fully complying with Local Rule 251 (including its meet and confer requirements), no later than 1/6/2016 at 3:30 PM. Going forward, no person or party shall file a Discovery Motion under Rules 26 - 37 and 45, until it has first met and conferred with affected person or party. The Motion shall contain a certification that movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected persons or parties in an effort to resolve dispute without court action. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

MORGAN HILL CONCERNED
PARENTS ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

13

ORDER
v.

14
15

No. 2:11-cv-3471 KJM AC

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
Plaintiff has filed a Motion To Compel (ECF No. 129), currently scheduled to be heard on

18
19

December 9, 2015. 1 Defendant California Department of Education (“CDE” or defendant) has

20

filed a request (ECF No. 130) for a 60-day continuance or extension of (a) the several 30-day

21

meet and confer requirements imposed by the district judge assigned to this case in her order of

22

November 3, 2015 (ECF No. 127), and (b) the hearing on plaintiff’s Motion To Compel. Plaintiff

23

has filed an opposition to the request for a continuance. ECF No. 131. District Judge Mueller

24

will rule on the request to modify the deadlines she has imposed. The undersigned here addresses

25

only the scheduling of the discovery motion hearing.

26
27
28

1

Discovery matters have been referred to the undersigned by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local
Rule”) 302(c)(1). The district judge assigned to this case has lifted the stay on discovery, and the
parties may now file their discovery motions before the magistrate judge. See ECF No. 124.
1

1

Defendant requests a continuance on grounds that (1) one of its lead counsels, R. Matthew

2

Wise, had to take an unexpected leave of absence to deal with a family issue, and (2) another

3

attorney on the case, Grant Lien, also took a leave of absence to deal with a family issue.

4

Moreover, defendants argue that the hearing should be continued because plaintiffs failed to meet

5

and confer before filing the motion. See ECF No. 130. Plaintiff opposes the requested

6

continuance on the grounds that (1) defendant has other lawyers who can deal with the motion,

7

(2) the delay will only add to past discovery delays, and (3) moving plaintiffs were not required to

8

schedule a meet and confer before filing their motion, rather, they must only meet and confer

9

before the hearing.

10

As for plaintiff’s last argument, the Local Rules do state that the parties need only meet

11

and confer “in advance of the filing of the motion or in advance of the hearing on the motion.”

12

Local Rule 251(b) (emphasis added). However, the parties are also governed by the Federal

13

Rules of Civil Procedure, which provide that “the motion must include a certification that the

14

movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer.” Rule 37(a)(1) (emphasis added).2

15

Thus, plaintiff’s motion should have included a certification that the parties met and conferred, or

16

attempted to do so.

17

Whatever the merits of the remainder of the parties’ arguments, it seems prudent at this

18

late date to permit a modest continuance so that the parties can productively meet and confer, and

19

prepare a proper joint statement. Also, because of the complexity of the discovery issues

20

involved in this case, the undersigned will order the parties to meet and confer before filing any

21

discovery motion under Rules 26 through 37 and 45. See Local Rule 102(d) (procedures outside

22

the Local Rules). The parties are also directed to familiarize themselves with the Standard

23

Procedures of the undersigned, available on the court’s website at

24

http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/all-judges/united-states-magistrate-

25

judge-allison-claire-ac/. Specifically, all meet and confer efforts related to discovery disputes

26

must be conducted in person or via telephone or video conferencing; written correspondence,

27
28

2

That requirement remains unchanged after the December 1, 2015 amendment of the Rules.
2

1

including email, is insufficient.

2
3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s request for a continuance (ECF
No. 130), is GRANTED in part, as follows:

4
5

1. The hearing on plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 129), is hereby CONTINUED to
January 13, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. before the undersigned.

6
7

2. The parties shall file a Joint Statement fully complying with Local Rule 251 (including
its meet and confer requirements), no later than January 6, 2016 at 3:30 p.m.

8
9

3. Going forward, no person or party shall file a discovery motion under Rules 26
through 37 and 45, until it has first met and conferred with the affected person or party. The

10

motion shall contain a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to

11

confer with other affected persons or parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court

12

action.

13

DATED: December 1, 2015

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3